Um...how do you discuss the historical context of the term "backlash" without noting Susan Faludi's book by that name?
https://www.amazon.com/Backlash-Undeclared-Against-American-Women/dp/030...
Too much analysis. The simple fact is that this is an internet-era problem. Before, there was a thing called "simple courtesy". It allowed human interactions without having to deal with the random anger/disappointment that occupies so much of most human minds.
Because, when push comes to shove, the great majority of people don't really care what you're so angry about. Except, it turns out, for those other people who never learned their simple courtesies.
If it bothers you you should just stop using social media.
Ther seems to be a pervasive addiction to indignation. Content is consumed—through social media, news sources and affinity grouping— that feeds the addiction.
It is interesting to think about the modifier so frequently associated with the word indignation: righteous. We all love to feel righteous indignation, it seems. It makes me wonder if part of the reason for the ever increasing culture of backlash is related to the loss of a basic shared sense that there is some absolute right and wrong. Without that outside standard by which to measure ourselves, we default to the righteous indignation fix. It is our high, and our validation.
1
Is it possible that instead of giving time to ponder over each other's point of view (however gothic it sounds), we are expecting an instantaneous machine like perfect human being in professional and social settings? Therefore, the backlash. If we develop keen sense of observation, we can see that all biases (or not so rational preferences) are essentially self-imposed limitations, hence deserve our empathy. A biased individual is in some sense handicapped. The last thing they need is a kick on the butt. They need counseling and right kind of setup that could change their viewpoint.
The cycle Tung describes is fueled by ignorance in turn solidified by the indifference or outright hostility to facts - facts that do not agree with what is wanted.
Rivers may be dammed and diverted to provide irrigation and electricity; and mountain tops have been slowly removed for their coal deposits...but no one can change human nature.
One World War Without End, Amen.
This article raises a troubling question: what can be done in a democracy if "everyone" believes the wrong thing?
Welcome to the NYT, Cameron.
You lay out the backlash phenomenon well.
Here are two comments: (a) you assume there is no substance to any of the complaints made during the course of expressed backlash, and/or that it can't be empirically studied to understand better, including when it does and doesn't occur, and when it does how fiercely; and (b) while we may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle, we could use a body of knowledge both on how to try to avoid unnecessarily creating backlash in order to promote an important point or cause, and/or how to rescue such a point when it is already there. That is, what do we know about having better, less hostile conversations? What could be learned and where should we look for better guidance? I suspect active listening, more use of empathy, some invoking of the old Golden Rule, some deep breaths would be parts of a more complex answer.
Perhaps the NYT could offer itself as a pilot, work with some clever social scientists, and see if subsequently it could make the points it wants to make, both in articles and editorials, while stirring less backlash. And then over the long run, what does that lead to?
It would be interesting to see how much backlash the avoiding backlash guidelines and practice would themselves generate, but that also would teach us something.
It could also do more stories on how adversaries productively work on joint projects, and how backlash was avoided or minimized.
An awful lot is at stake here.
2
Hillary Clinton has blamed her election loss on many factors. I think the real reason she lost was a backlash to President Obama. Eight years of "we know best", however well intentioned was bound to produce a backlash. Mrs. Clinton and her staff didn't anticipate the reaction to President Obama. Maybe if she had learned Newton's Law, to every action there is a reaction, at Yale Law, she would now be President.
1
And the backlash is: Who Knew Best in those 8 years? Can you tell what the answer is even now, or is it still unclear?
Maybe nobody knows best...
Or. Maybe. There is a right-wing gaggle of bullet-writers and commentators who share talking points that are repeated over and over to raise the temperature of those who feel victimized.
Incessantly.
And she lost because she was painted as worse than more of the same.
I never felt that Obama&Co. projected "we know best," but I did feel that the RW commentariat fostered that meme, among many others, designed to tear down their opponents.
And now, fauxtrage is all the rage.
4
Besides that, I think that after 24 years in the spotlight, a large portion of the public was heartily sick of her act.
1